Leong Sze Hian v Teo Ai Choo

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: A P Rajah J
• Judgment Date: 24 February 1984
• Neutral Citation: [1984] SGHC 5
• Docket Number: Suit No 2086 of 1982
• Date: 24 February 1984
• Year: 1984
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ronnie Quek Cheng Chye (Shook Lin & Bok)
• Citation: [1984] SGHC 5
• Defendant Counsel: KS Chung (Chung & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Mortgages,Trusts,Express trusts,Whether property held in trust for plaintiff,Mortgaged property belonging to plaintiff,Inapplicability of Statute of Frauds 1677,Land,Discharge of mortgage by defendant

The plaintiff`s claim in Suit 2086 of 1982 against the defendant is for a declaration that she is the trustee of the property known as 59 Walmer Drive, Singapore (the property) for his benefit and for an order that she transfers the property to him forthwith upon the payment by the plaintiff of monies due or owing under the legal mortgage of the property. To this claim her response is that she bought the property outright from the plaintiff at the price of $95,000 and that in any event the claim is unenforceable by virtue of the Statute of Frauds. In Suit No 2353 of 1982 the defendant is the plaintiff and her claim, as owner both registered and beneficial, against the defendant (he being the plaintiff in Suit No 2086 of 1982) is for possession of the property and for damages at $1,000 per month from 12 June 1982 until payment or delivery of possession whichever is the later. The suits having been consolidated was tried by me on 18 and 19 October 1983 and on 23, 24, 25, 26 and 28 January 1984. It was agreed that the Suit No 2086 of 1982 be tried first.

The plaintiff, Leong Sze Hian, and the defendant, Teo Ai Choo (s), first came to know one another in 1971. The plaintiff was in the Pre-U II class of Raffles Institution in 1971 and it was then that she joined its Pre-U I class. The plaintiff, having completed his Pre-U II examinations, sought employment in the private sector whereas the defendant went on to the University of Singapore in 1973 where she read architecture. By now the friendship, which had been struck up at Raffles Institution, had ripened into one of `steady boy friend and girl friend`. The defendant, after qualifying as an architect at the University, joined the professional staff of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) in 1978 as an architect. By the time she had joined the URA the parties were seeing each other practically every day and were introducing themselves as fiancees. They were also staying, from time to time, in each other`s parents` home and it was generally accepted by their parents that they would get married one day. They were so close one to the other that, while she was still studying at the University, and he working, they had a joint account with the Chartered Bank. Also her father and that of the plaintiff were joint beneficiaries of the plaintiff`s Central Provident Fund account. How deeply in love and how committed she was to the plaintiff, the letters she wrote to him from Hawaii (2AB) bear ample testimony.

The plaintiff`s father was the original owner of the property where the family had been living since 1955. He transferred the property to the plaintiff in January 1977 and he and his wife continued to live there with him. The plaintiff, soon after the transfer, mortgaged it to the Overseas Union Trust Ltd (OUT) for $80,000. He was unable to meet his commitments under the mortgage and was constantly in arrears with his payments. The defendant knew of his financial difficulties and of the persistent demands of OUT for payment of the arrears due under the mortgage.

On 15 July 1979 (1AB7) OUT wrote to their solicitors as follows:

We refer to your letter dated 29 May 1979 and have to advise that no attempt has been made to settle the arrears of $3,185 representing instalments for the months of April (part)/July 1979.

Please proceed to dispose of the property by public auction as provided in the Mortgage, and sent a carbon copy of the letter to the Plaintiff. It so happened that when he received this letter the Defendant was with him and at his invitation read the letter. At this moment of time the plaintiff`s father was, and had been for some time quite ill.

Both their account of events up till this point of time do not materially differ but on the question of as to how and why she became the registered owner of the property their accounts do not agree.

Plaintiff`s account

On reading the said letter of 15 July the defendant, because of the close relationship then existing between them, voluntarily proposed to him that she enquire from the URA whether she could possibly obtain a loan from them for his benefit to enable him to discharge the aforesaid mortgage. To this proposal he acceded.

Subsequently the defendant informed him that she had been advised by a solicitor, a Mr Sim Mong Soo, as to how the said loan could be obtained by her from her employers for his benefit. The plaintiff was to transfer the property to her as if by way of sale and the loan was to be secured by a mortgage to Credit POSB. It was, therefore, agreed between themselves that he would, for the sole purpose of obtaining the said loan to discharge the aforesaid mortgage, transfer the property to the defendant as if by way of sale to her and that she would thereafter hold the property as trustee for his benefit. It was also further agreed between themselves that it would be for him to pay (1) all the instalment repayments in respect of the said loan; (2) all legal, stamp and other fees and expenses incurred in transfer of the property to her, and (3) all legal, stamp and other fees and expenses incurred in her mortgage of the property to Credit POSB to secure the loan. He was also to pay the property tax on the property and all PUB bills.

Either on 27 or 28 July 1979 both of them went to see Mr Sim, the plaintiff for the first time, and instructed him accordingly. As the defendant was leaving for Hawaii on 16 August on scholarship for about two years, she signed a power of attorney before Mr Sim in favour of her father on 31 July 1979 to enable him to complete the transaction. The defendant left for Hawaii on 16 August where she pursued her scholarship studies. She wrote often to the plaintiff and they telephoned each other frequently.

Defendant`s account

She was present when the plaintiff received the said carbon copy letter of 15 July 1979. He showed it to her and it was he who suggested to her that she should buy the property. She had no money of her own but she wished very much to help him because she did not want him, his father, who was very ill at that time, and his step-mother dehoused and stranded without a house to live in. In response she told him she would buy the property from him at $95,000 provided she could obtain a loan from the URA. She laid down the following terms as those on which she would buy the property:

(1) that the plaintiff would pay for all the legal costs and expenses involved in obtaining the loan;

...